The government is swayed by interest groups, to the degree that they have political power. (Dictatorships usually aren't so swayed, certainly not by elephant huggers.) Some of those interest groups might oppose your interests and you might oppose some of theirs. It's part of what has made Amurrica great!
Besides, saving the elephants will secure a longer term supply of ivory hanko stamps, trinkets and statuettes that are so vital to civilization as we know it.
We know that a major responsibility of government under the Constitution is defense. We also suspect that a lot of "defense" isn't defensive. We spend way too much on arms, but some other things have no Constitutional basis, or rational reason for the expense.
Originally posted by normbenign We know that a major responsibility of government under the Constitution is defense. We also suspect that a lot of "defense" isn't defensive. We spend way too much on arms, but some other things have no Constitutional basis, or rational reason for the expense.
In America, a rational reason for something like saving the elephants can be "We have been led to think that a majority of the citizens want it, and it's not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. If the people don't really want it we will hear about it. If the gripers aren't able to mount a political campaign to defeat it, they don't dislike it enough."
Originally posted by JS357 In America, a rational reason for something like saving the elephants can be "We have been led to think that a majority of the citizens want it, and it's not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. If the people don't really want it we will hear about it. If the gripers aren't able to mount a political campaign to defeat it, they don't dislike it enough."
There is a difference between stuff not prohibited by the Constitution or SCOTUS, and those things that are enumerated duties of government.
Spending money on national defense is a proper use of the government as defined by the US Constitution.
I'm all for finding and getting rid of fraud in the military industrial complex, but state of the art equipment is going to cost money and hopefully save US lives.
I know some people have difficulty seeing the difference between US lives and lives of those who attack the US, but such people are pathetic.
Originally posted by Eladar Liberals are pathetic.
Spending money on national defense is a proper use of the government as defined by the US Constitution.
I'm all for finding and getting rid of fraud in the military industrial complex, but state of the art equipment is going to cost money and hopefully save US lives.
I know some people have difficulty seeing the difference between US lives and lives of those who attack the US, but such people are pathetic.
When was the last time supercarriers and stealth jets saved American lives?
US spends 3.8 million to study elephants 2.7 million on why lesbians get drunk
19 Mar '13 16:511 edit
Back to Top